Discussion in '.375 & Up' started by Josh333333333, Jun 2, 2019.
Wasn't Boddington in the Navy?
He is a former Marine. Some active duty and Marine Corps Reserve. Retired as a Colonel.
Marines are part of the Navy
Only for submitting a budget. I would not say that to assertively to a Marine! They have a full seat on the JCS and are one of our five combat services whe you include the Coast Guard during war time operations.
I use to tease my friend at work about that seeing how I was in the Navy. Never seen a Marine say to much to a medic.
I am sure about that. Medics are revered in all the Services. They rank with the most courageous men and women on the battlefield. Thank you for your service!
I have a buddy who was in the Navy. He used to chide me about the Marine Corps being a department of the Navy...until I replied "That's correct...but it is the Men's Department".
It was all in good fun, of course.
. Great response!!
I wasn't a medic I was a boatswain's mate. We did all the bridge watches manned the gun mounts with the gunners mates. I was basically a crane operator and was on a tender. A lot better than a snipe where they stuck you in the bottom of the ship watching guages.
If you want a classic bolt action and not a Blaser, just buy a safari CZ and send it to Wayne for upgrades.
From what I read about the Boddington 550, there is NOT 2000 worth of work in it! Another question is, and this comes up regularly, why do most of the CZ 550s seem to need "work" done on them??
As others have suggested, there are really good, reasonably priced, used DG bolt guns available... with some shopping around. After all, many are purchased and used/shot little or not used at all- and some purchased on impulse with some kind of vicarious dream of a safari to Africa that never happens.
I think it could be one of the two reasons.
Either additional features to install, or possible drop of quality:
I dont have cz 550 (although I have seen few), but I have cz 75b, pistol and cz 452 2e zkm, 22lr. (older production line)
Those two items of the same brand have never seen gunsmith, there was no need to, like almost all other firearms I have from other gun makers and which have seen gunsmith for this or that..
So, my guess why some particular cz 550 need additional work done, would be they do not have what is expected of similar rifles of higher prices range. (cz 550 to be like "real original safari mauser 98", which costs 3 times more, or English Mauser even more expensive...)
Why other firearms that I have - have gone brand new to gunsmith, here are few reasons, just for example:
Brand new O/U shotgun, hunting, does not have sling rings - so I had gunsmith to install. b525.
maybe some prefer hunting in the field with shotgun without sling, but my preference is opposite, so I had rings installed. (additional feature)
Brand new tikka t3 tac (tick barrel contour), had factory installed iron sights. When shooting at 50 meters, using iron sights, POI was about half meter below target!
My guess, they just fitted front sight from thin barrel contour, which brought the muzzle down, shifting poi low, as well.
Gunsmith had to install new sights, etc...
For cz firearms (of older production), I have never been in need to take them to gunsmith. But neither do I need, additional barrel band on 22lr... They work fine just like that, out of the box. I do not need additional features on them. I do understand that safari rifle is somewhat more specialized, more "featurised", or "traditionalised" then ordinary working rifle on northern hemisphere- so there may be a need to do additional work on them (CZ).
Or, it could be something else, and that is overall drop of quality (in newer production line):
I have read recently, an interesting article on modern firearms shortcomings and flaws. In fact, high percentage of flaws noted, on brand new firearms of various makers. Fixing it may require gunsmith. So, new cz 550, may as well come to that category?!My experience is very similar to conclusions of this article, although not necessarily related to CZ brand:
(moderators: if posting links to web pages like this, is not allowed, pls remove the link)
I would sugesst that 40% rate is somewhat suspect. I would have a hard time believing that 40% of SAKO's or Blaser's leaving the factory have problems or even "cheaper" guns. CNC has done miracles for quality.
When I buy a firearm, to choose one, it takes me at least a year to analyze, compare, check, think about it, test the friends rifle if available with a friend, talk to guns shop owner, etc.... to get it as perfect as possible to my intended use or taste, which is equal important (taste).
After all this years, my conclusion is this:
If you want a "perfect" rifle, you must know exactly what you want, and for what purpose - and then make a custom rifle, order one, and pay for it. Then, only then, it will be perfect.
Simply put, my conclusion is factory made firearms are not personalized, thus minor imperfections could be.
Ok, since you mentioned Sako. I got one. I attached the picture, above, pls check position of rear sight near front end of scope.
I have (by dimensions) very ordinary average scope for it: Zeiss diavary 3-12x56.
The maker (Sako) for its own optiloc mount system says - for optics up to 56 mm, low mounts are possible to use. Indeed , the barrel will allow this, but not factory fitted rear sight. (!!!)
And I want the scope to be as low as possible.
So, optilock low mounts may be, but not for all 56 mm scopes. (not for diaary)
Front end of Diavary, on Sako optilock, gets on rear sight, cannot be adjusted rearwards, due to position of rings, and only solution is to put medium height rings, and to move the scope up! Scope can not be moved rearwards inside the rings, due to front cone.
So, if you are perfectionist, and want a rifle with as low mounts as possible, this will not be perfect option, may require gunsmith to assist to adjust for 56 mm.
I am not perfectionst, so I use the rifle as it is. i live with it as it is.
Rifle? It is accurate. Moa, or better. No any issues. Feeding, extraction, excellent. Set trigger, stock ergonomy, palm swell, forend tip, checkering, accuracy all perfect. No complaints, except for this medium height mounts.
Mount are also quick release. Attaching the scope, and detaching does not change point of impact. So, quality it is.
If the position of rear sight is different, low mounts could be used.
The flaw: Scope is not as low as I would prefer.
So, the choice is:
- to live with medium height mounts, with 56 mm scope. (my choice, my compromise)
- to use 50 mm scope, or less with low mounts (I use 56 mm for hunting in low light conditions)
- take it to gunsmith to do something with rear sight (I avoided this)
- or... to order a high end custom rifle to your specification, and pay for it. (not for me)
Is this a flaw, despite makers instructions on posibility for low mounts up to 56 mm? Or we will not call it a "flaw", but a "rifle specifications"?
Its up to an individual and how much perfectionist he is. But factory rifles are not "perfect". Even Sako, at least in my view.
For blaser I dont know, but modular rifle, gives quite a lot of other options, reducing the posibility of "flaws".
So coming back to subjetc of cz 550, various upgrades, possibly should not be considered as flaw, but more like personalization fo individual needs in safari DG hunting.
The reason many people like the CZ 550, especially PHs and guides like me, is because of the deeper magazine. My .458 Lott holds FIVE down. That is incredible. This feature makes it very attractive as a dangerous game rifle as well as the controlled round feed Mauser-like action. As for the .458 Lott in a CZ, it is known to have some feeding issues and Wayne at AHR, or other qualified gunsmiths, can fix it. Many people have the CZ action smoothed up by a gunsmith because they come from the factory a little rough. I also had him shorten the barrel to 22” and install a barrel band sling attachment. These two modifications make the rifle much easier to hike with because the barrel doesn’t grab at brush and tree branches above your head when in heavy cover. I find this to really help when hiking through alder thickets on the AK Peninsula and even in Africa once in a while. Basically, the CZ 550 is a good platform to build from for the price.
The OP asked about 3200 for a CZ 550 "Boddington".
Still scratching my head about a 3200.00 CZ 550 that has barrel shortened to 24" barrel, a barrel band added for front sling, thinned down stock and "Boddington" engraved on the floor plate plus whatever other lipstick is added!! The "Boddington" special has nothing to do with magazine capacity.
I just looked at a CZ 550 on GB for a BIN price of 1120. If my math is correct that comes to 2080 extra for the "Boddington" (3200-1120= 2080).
I guess I'm not seeing much of a debate.?.?.? You got guys who don't particularly care for Colonel Boddington, then there are those of us that admire him. Just because his name is on the rifle doesn't make it a "bought rifle".
If it fits and shoots well, who cares who's name is on the side of it? Anybody answer that?
I'm going to say it's not the name that is the issue, it's the exorbitant fee added due to the name for very little upgrade. In the example above your post a regular 550 could be bought and then sent in for upgrades that make it actually worth the $3200 price tag. The same price results in a far better rifle. This is the reason to not buy anything with ANYONE'S name on it- if it costs more because of said name, it's a poor use of money
Got it and I hear you. However in the past, I have purchased some pretty expensive rifles only to find out that I had to sink more money into to get the accuracy I desired. Then again I have bought some cheap stuff that shot phenomenal. So all I'm getting at is that is YES Craig's rifle cost more because of his name on it but what if he doesn't have to do a damn thing to it? Then it was worth it, right? Debating not arguing. I agree with your point, but everyone who messes w guns knows there are diamonds and lemons. We just like to think that the more we spend the more likely it will be a diamond.
Separate names with a comma.